[LLVMdev] Preferring to use GCC instead of LLVM

[Bill Wendling]

On May 12, 2008, at 10:49 PM, kr512 wrote:
> Major client says using JIT is "a moronic strategy with
> unnecessary complexity and undesirable performance (CPU and
> RAM use) characteristics, with significant disadvantages
> compared to fully converting programs to native code at time
> of installation".
>
Ah! Okay, so "Major Client" said to do it one way and you are not sure  
how to do that, so you bug us. You first start off by saying that LLVM  
is an incomplete backend by pointing out that GCC is compleat, yet  
LLVM still has to use GCC. It's then pointed out to you that you are  
patently wrong in that regard, and that GCC also produces assembly  
code, then runs it through an assembler and linker (both of which are  
separate programs from LLVM). And so because LLVM is now on par with  
being a "compleat backend" with GCC. You change and say that it's now  
for customer's computers. And that you can't expect customers to  
install an assembler and linker on their computers. (Of course, no one  
was suggesting that you actually do that, but no matter.)

People mentioned a JIT as a possible alternative, but you dismiss that  
because of some random statement by Major Client.

People say that you should (gasp) actually *build* LLVM, which will  
give you the DLLs your Major Client so desperately needs, but you  
won't use the suggested ways they mention, nor will you patch the VC++  
project files, nor even submit a bug report. You just bitch and moan  
and call us "unprofessional", while using inflammatory language which  
itself is unprofessional.

So, either use the suggested ways to build LLVM, patch the VC++  
project files and build LLVM, or submit a *proper* bug report.

-bw